I'm behind in the devotionals, but wow. Thise verse has a very line-in-the-sand quality to it.
Discipleship is no joke. I would say that some historical context is important in terms of setting the perspective, even though the underlying idea is still crystal clear.
From what I understand, in Judaism a person's family played a much larger part of an individual's own cultural significance and glory and identity than a person's family plays today. It's not really like that today in modern Western culture; you might say that by comparison, someone's economic or educational pedigree plays a much larger part in defining an individual's significance/identity.
So Jesus is really taking apart what was a regular person's central focus in those times and putting it onto His work. Still, it was probably pretty jarring to hear for those would-be disciples and it's just as jarring today. Whatever you think your priority is, no matter how noble or elevated you thought it was, it has to be a distant-2nd if you've chosen to be a disciple...
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
-ation to -ation...
There are a couple of other questions listed before this one, but this was the one that was interesting to me:
Studying Scripture can simply increase our information. How do we move from information to transformation?
I wish I knew the answer to that question. Though, I think there's a lot wrapped up in that one question; like a lot of sub-questions. :)
How much do we already know (or feel super-strongly) to be true, but it doesn't penetrate our life in any material way?
That's a harsh way of putting it. I think there are a lot of things that I feel like, I constantly relearn and I remind myself I should already know.
Why not? Do we not believe it enough? Or, have we heard it so much that we've become innured to it?
This happens to me to. Where, I hear a message so much, it loses its potency.
Are our expectations wrong? Do we have an unrealistic expectation that transformation should be immediate and complete?
Whether it's through age or sermons or what have you, I've slowly come around to the idea that, we're all constant works in progress. In some sense, I think Christian spiritual growth is the same as everything else I've found to be a worthwhile pursuit; it just takes time, it's gradual. It doesn't just happen overnight. The analogy breaks down in that, with other things, hard work is the main/sometimes only ingredient in what accomplishes the desired result; not so with deeper/stronger faith.
For me, I also think that for a long time, I held Christ at an impersonal arm's length. Checking my most personal, uncomfortable baggage at the door when I approached Him.
I could nod with the pithy truth seriously intoned in the sermon or come up with the right conclusion to the small group question. But approaching a relationship with Christ in that way really just cheated me... In the end, I'm still trying to answer the original question, I think, by trying to open myself, warts and all, more completely to Him...
Studying Scripture can simply increase our information. How do we move from information to transformation?
I wish I knew the answer to that question. Though, I think there's a lot wrapped up in that one question; like a lot of sub-questions. :)
How much do we already know (or feel super-strongly) to be true, but it doesn't penetrate our life in any material way?
That's a harsh way of putting it. I think there are a lot of things that I feel like, I constantly relearn and I remind myself I should already know.
Why not? Do we not believe it enough? Or, have we heard it so much that we've become innured to it?
This happens to me to. Where, I hear a message so much, it loses its potency.
Are our expectations wrong? Do we have an unrealistic expectation that transformation should be immediate and complete?
Whether it's through age or sermons or what have you, I've slowly come around to the idea that, we're all constant works in progress. In some sense, I think Christian spiritual growth is the same as everything else I've found to be a worthwhile pursuit; it just takes time, it's gradual. It doesn't just happen overnight. The analogy breaks down in that, with other things, hard work is the main/sometimes only ingredient in what accomplishes the desired result; not so with deeper/stronger faith.
For me, I also think that for a long time, I held Christ at an impersonal arm's length. Checking my most personal, uncomfortable baggage at the door when I approached Him.
I could nod with the pithy truth seriously intoned in the sermon or come up with the right conclusion to the small group question. But approaching a relationship with Christ in that way really just cheated me... In the end, I'm still trying to answer the original question, I think, by trying to open myself, warts and all, more completely to Him...
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Pauline waters filling stream of consciousness...
Today's study question is:
Paul says that "all Scripture is God-breathed," or inspired. How is the inspiration of Scripture different from an "inspired" speech or writing?
I think there's a sort of semantic twist to this question. If you change the verb-to-be and use the active verb the sentence reads, "God inspires all scripture"
That's a lot different than, "William Wallace, inspired by freedom, delivers the Braveheart speech"
I found one link to one commentary that fixated all the all part of the verse. The commentator writes:
Every single word is truth from the beginning. The totality of God's written revelation is not just true - it is Truth! There is not a speck of untruth in Scripture. It is everlasting.
I think that's a fallacious conclusion as it pertains specifically to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. If Paul were a CS nerd, I think he'd approve of the contrapositive of the original statement (which is still the logical equivalent of the 1st half of verse 16):
There is no scripture that is not God-inspired.
That's a completely different statement than asserting the truth aspect of every word. And please understand that I'm not necessarily disputing the "every word is true" idea here. I'm just saying it's not the same thing as what Paul says there.
Oliver, why does any of that matter to you?
Because it's easier for me to reconcile that everything between the covers is divinely inspired than it is for me to accept that every single statement is crafted to perfection.
If everything is divinely inspired, then there's still some room that inspiration <> dictation. I get that going down that path is a slippery slope to relativism. But lets face it; language is an imperfect device and people are likely imperfect delivery mechanisms for perfection.
And, if you were to assert the absolute truth premise, well, honestly it feels like sometimes Paul can be kind of hard on the ladies:
2 Timothy 3, verse 6: mentioned yesterday; it's not like, he's straight up calling all women silly or gullible or whatever the particular translation says; it's more of a "if the shoe fits" kind of phrasing. Still, he does specifically call out women...
1 Timothy 2:11-15: pretty rough...
1 Timothy 5:13: This verse kind of reminded me of Peggy Bundy caricature from Married with Children...
1 Corinthians 11:2-15 : this is a weird one, b/c it starts out pretty like, "do this, not that" and ends, "well, figure out what works for you"
Good ole TK would remind me that:
1. I might be looking at things through my own sort of cultural/societal prism; the norms of which would very likely offend other cultures, societies that are just as much part of God's kingdom.
2. I might not have the entire story.
3. I might just be flat out wrong.
Paul says that "all Scripture is God-breathed," or inspired. How is the inspiration of Scripture different from an "inspired" speech or writing?
I think there's a sort of semantic twist to this question. If you change the verb-to-be and use the active verb the sentence reads, "God inspires all scripture"
That's a lot different than, "William Wallace, inspired by freedom, delivers the Braveheart speech"
I found one link to one commentary that fixated all the all part of the verse. The commentator writes:
Every single word is truth from the beginning. The totality of God's written revelation is not just true - it is Truth! There is not a speck of untruth in Scripture. It is everlasting.
I think that's a fallacious conclusion as it pertains specifically to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. If Paul were a CS nerd, I think he'd approve of the contrapositive of the original statement (which is still the logical equivalent of the 1st half of verse 16):
There is no scripture that is not God-inspired.
That's a completely different statement than asserting the truth aspect of every word. And please understand that I'm not necessarily disputing the "every word is true" idea here. I'm just saying it's not the same thing as what Paul says there.
Oliver, why does any of that matter to you?
Because it's easier for me to reconcile that everything between the covers is divinely inspired than it is for me to accept that every single statement is crafted to perfection.
If everything is divinely inspired, then there's still some room that inspiration <> dictation. I get that going down that path is a slippery slope to relativism. But lets face it; language is an imperfect device and people are likely imperfect delivery mechanisms for perfection.
And, if you were to assert the absolute truth premise, well, honestly it feels like sometimes Paul can be kind of hard on the ladies:
2 Timothy 3, verse 6: mentioned yesterday; it's not like, he's straight up calling all women silly or gullible or whatever the particular translation says; it's more of a "if the shoe fits" kind of phrasing. Still, he does specifically call out women...
1 Timothy 2:11-15: pretty rough...
1 Timothy 5:13: This verse kind of reminded me of Peggy Bundy caricature from Married with Children...
1 Corinthians 11:2-15 : this is a weird one, b/c it starts out pretty like, "do this, not that" and ends, "well, figure out what works for you"
Good ole TK would remind me that:
1. I might be looking at things through my own sort of cultural/societal prism; the norms of which would very likely offend other cultures, societies that are just as much part of God's kingdom.
2. I might not have the entire story.
3. I might just be flat out wrong.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Trying to do my QT's in the morning again, to kick-start my day off on a good note. In MDG, we've been doing a memory verse and going through the various questions in the study guide. Moreover, this week we're going to be reading through the text on how to do inductive Bible study. For now, this is the study question for today...
Read 2 Timothy 3. How is Paul's instruction about the nature of Scripture a contrast to the nonbelieving world that Paul describes?
In verse 16-17, Paul describes scripture as "inspired by God...so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work."
He describes the nonbelieving world in verses 3-5 with lots of colorful nasty-isms: "lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, slanderers, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure."
A while ago, I kind of chuckled off my MIL's sandwich-board-The-End-is-at-Hand! theories. She was saying, "Just look! In the last few years, look at Thailand, New Orleans, Haiti and Japan..." (and you could since add Alabama) My counter theory was that natural disasters have happened since forever ago, its just not until the age of television and the Internet have we had images of the destruction beamed into our homes.
But, looking at Paul's laundry list of "oh noes!", maybe she has a point? People loving themselves, loving money and pleasure and being conceited and ungrateful; to me that seems more the rule than the exception?
From what I understand, Paul anticipated the end of days might happen within his lifetime. Even though it didn't happen that way, I think what's more clear than the actual timing is how, as Christians, we're expected to conduct ourselves in the midst of this kind of decadence and spiritual decay;
v5: Avoid them! (profligaters)
v14: continue in what you've learned
v17: be proficient, equipped for every good work.
Total aside, but v6 kind of cracked me up where it says, "those who make their way into households and captivate silly women..." (I wrote a note for that verse, "Oh snap! No he didn't!")
The more I've done MDG, the more I've come to understand that a Christian man's life is meant to be productive and proactively lived. We're to actively build proficiency and make ourselves strong in spirit and character so as to be disciples that bear the fruit of the Spirit. There's no provision (at least that I've read so far) for the couch potato Christian.
So, I think Paul's instruction is to invest your time and energy to scripture to build yourself up. We're charged not to withdraw and keep fighting against the decay of people's hearts turning towards themselves or towards things; towards everything except the only thing that actually does nourish a person's spirit.
Read 2 Timothy 3. How is Paul's instruction about the nature of Scripture a contrast to the nonbelieving world that Paul describes?
In verse 16-17, Paul describes scripture as "inspired by God...so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work."
He describes the nonbelieving world in verses 3-5 with lots of colorful nasty-isms: "lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, slanderers, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure."
A while ago, I kind of chuckled off my MIL's sandwich-board-The-End-is-at-Hand! theories. She was saying, "Just look! In the last few years, look at Thailand, New Orleans, Haiti and Japan..." (and you could since add Alabama) My counter theory was that natural disasters have happened since forever ago, its just not until the age of television and the Internet have we had images of the destruction beamed into our homes.
But, looking at Paul's laundry list of "oh noes!", maybe she has a point? People loving themselves, loving money and pleasure and being conceited and ungrateful; to me that seems more the rule than the exception?
From what I understand, Paul anticipated the end of days might happen within his lifetime. Even though it didn't happen that way, I think what's more clear than the actual timing is how, as Christians, we're expected to conduct ourselves in the midst of this kind of decadence and spiritual decay;
v5: Avoid them! (profligaters)
v14: continue in what you've learned
v17: be proficient, equipped for every good work.
Total aside, but v6 kind of cracked me up where it says, "those who make their way into households and captivate silly women..." (I wrote a note for that verse, "Oh snap! No he didn't!")
The more I've done MDG, the more I've come to understand that a Christian man's life is meant to be productive and proactively lived. We're to actively build proficiency and make ourselves strong in spirit and character so as to be disciples that bear the fruit of the Spirit. There's no provision (at least that I've read so far) for the couch potato Christian.
So, I think Paul's instruction is to invest your time and energy to scripture to build yourself up. We're charged not to withdraw and keep fighting against the decay of people's hearts turning towards themselves or towards things; towards everything except the only thing that actually does nourish a person's spirit.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
2 Corinthians 5:1-10
Yesterday was a busy day for me, with my coworker up & quitting out of nowhere the day before.
I did spend a little time reading some stuff here and there from Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller, really hammering home the reality of Hell (in conjunction with Rob Bell's book being released, I suspect)
I respect both those guys, but nothing tires me out more than dogmatic pissing matches. Except maybe the stairmill.
Yesterday I needed more...quiet time and renewing than foundation-building, I guess. :)
I didn't get a lot of today's scripture though I think I have a sense of what it's saying. Seems like Paul's perspective is a sort of duality to existence now and here on Earth and eternity. When he talks about being "unclothed" in the "tent" (which I take to mean, Earthly existence) versus being "clothed with our heavenly dwelling", I'm not sure if he means like, he's vulnerable (to sin? temptation?) while being here on Earth versus having no such concerns once he's in Heaven?
Or maybe he's just talking about like, the comfort of being in the place you're supposed to be (his real home, Heaven...) versus just the weary traveler's good-enough-getting-by-existence until he gets home.
Verse 10, my study bible says that even Christians will be audited for their good/evil deeds. So, I guess...try to keep the naughty list kinda short? I mean, if you're trying to spend your time focused on Christ and your mind and your spirit geared towards him; I'd imagine it'd be harder to sin regardless...
Anyways, I got like 16 lbs of pork shoulder to check on so... :)
I did spend a little time reading some stuff here and there from Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller, really hammering home the reality of Hell (in conjunction with Rob Bell's book being released, I suspect)
I respect both those guys, but nothing tires me out more than dogmatic pissing matches. Except maybe the stairmill.
Yesterday I needed more...quiet time and renewing than foundation-building, I guess. :)
I didn't get a lot of today's scripture though I think I have a sense of what it's saying. Seems like Paul's perspective is a sort of duality to existence now and here on Earth and eternity. When he talks about being "unclothed" in the "tent" (which I take to mean, Earthly existence) versus being "clothed with our heavenly dwelling", I'm not sure if he means like, he's vulnerable (to sin? temptation?) while being here on Earth versus having no such concerns once he's in Heaven?
Or maybe he's just talking about like, the comfort of being in the place you're supposed to be (his real home, Heaven...) versus just the weary traveler's good-enough-getting-by-existence until he gets home.
Verse 10, my study bible says that even Christians will be audited for their good/evil deeds. So, I guess...try to keep the naughty list kinda short? I mean, if you're trying to spend your time focused on Christ and your mind and your spirit geared towards him; I'd imagine it'd be harder to sin regardless...
Anyways, I got like 16 lbs of pork shoulder to check on so... :)
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
side note...
I'm not a huge x-tian music fan, like some people.
I heard this Adele song last night on a TV show ("Make You Feel My Love") and instantly liked it. That rarely happens for me, songs usually take a few spins for me to get into.
Found on YouTube that Phil Keaggy performed it at a church? He introduced the song as a Dylan tune that sounded to him like a love letter from Jesus to us (turns out Dylan was, in fact, born-again in the 70's)
I can't hear it any other way now and, it chokes me up and gives me goosebumps in a way I can't remember any other song has, and certainly no other praise or hymn has. I think because, I generally don't think about Jesus so like, human...? Like, as a real, tangible person that speaks a non KJV-dialect...
Guess I might be a X-tian music fan...
I heard this Adele song last night on a TV show ("Make You Feel My Love") and instantly liked it. That rarely happens for me, songs usually take a few spins for me to get into.
Found on YouTube that Phil Keaggy performed it at a church? He introduced the song as a Dylan tune that sounded to him like a love letter from Jesus to us (turns out Dylan was, in fact, born-again in the 70's)
I can't hear it any other way now and, it chokes me up and gives me goosebumps in a way I can't remember any other song has, and certainly no other praise or hymn has. I think because, I generally don't think about Jesus so like, human...? Like, as a real, tangible person that speaks a non KJV-dialect...
Guess I might be a X-tian music fan...
Mark 10:32-34
Asked and answered: In a previous blog, I wondered if Jesus went to the cross knowing or not-knowing if God would raise him again.
The end of verse 34 states unequivocally that Jesus clearly knows that He'll be resurrected.
In verse 32, I'm not sure if they're still like, hung-over-amazed by the encounter with the rich young man, or if this is a totally new amazement and fear.
And also, Jesus foretells what will happen, but doesn't tell his disciples why? Maybe they already knew? Maybe, it just wasn't time for them to know?
Anyhow, today's devotional is only these two verses and I think that's because this is one of the bedrock understandings that a Christian needs to have at the foundation of his/her faith. There's always the risk of like, hearing something so often you tune it out...hope that doesn't/wont' happen to me.
The end of verse 34 states unequivocally that Jesus clearly knows that He'll be resurrected.
In verse 32, I'm not sure if they're still like, hung-over-amazed by the encounter with the rich young man, or if this is a totally new amazement and fear.
And also, Jesus foretells what will happen, but doesn't tell his disciples why? Maybe they already knew? Maybe, it just wasn't time for them to know?
Anyhow, today's devotional is only these two verses and I think that's because this is one of the bedrock understandings that a Christian needs to have at the foundation of his/her faith. There's always the risk of like, hearing something so often you tune it out...hope that doesn't/wont' happen to me.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Romans 6:15-23
What is it about sin?
We know it's bad for us, we don't want to do it but we keep falling back into it. Why does it have such a hold on us?
In MDG, we talked a bit about how common the problem of lust is, really not surprising given that our congregation has young men in their early 20's. I would be more surprised (and frankly a little weirded out) if our church was full of young men utterly disinterested by girls. Moreover I would say the scope is much, much larger, to wit;
1. Eastlake church recently hosted a debate with Ron Jeremy and
2. this article popped up on CNN.
Again, not trying to minimize things at all, but just that we, at UNL, aren't freaks for confronting the same demons as the rest of the male population.
I wasn't always interested in God. It basically took both of my parents dying, my job nearly being axed and the birth of 2 kids for me to really perk up. In my not-so-interested in God days, I've seen my share of porn, strip clubs, bars, etc.
If you read the links above, everything that Pastor Meeks and Ryan Buckingham sounds right to me. But on my own, I been thinking about why porn holds onto mens' minds the way it does and I have a theory. There's obviously a biological component to it. But on top of that, there is an aspect that lines up very much with a Christian understanding of sin.
We know Matthew 22:36-40, so we can probably figure that when we love other things the way we are supposed to love God instead of God, that's the quintessence of sin. Porn and strip clubs and other lustful endeavors sell a fantasy, they themselves will tell you so. When you're into them, you're indulging a fantasy that you're something special. You imagine it's you and that this desirable girl(s) (or guy(s), I suppose) needs and wants you because you just got that special something and something about you is just that fulfilling. Again, I hope I'm not taking this into like, a bad place, but the most intoxicating strip clubs aren't necessarily the ones with the prettiest girls. More often than not, they're the ones with the best saleswomen (who most convincingly sell you the fantasy.)
The subtext is we get to be God. We imagine that we're the ones being worshipped and adored. We love and cling to that fantasy that we're a virile tower of Awesome that is desirable and fulfilling to the woman (or women or men, whatever you perv. just kidding) who is so lucky as to worship before us. And, like a lot of other sin, when it's done, instead of being satisfied, we come back wanting even more. By looking for more, we're saying we want to be enslaved. We want to live in fantasyland.
In sexual sin, in addition to all of the terrible consequences that it wreaks on society and interpersonal relationships and in a man's view of women, it twists and warps a man's heart. We can't stop craving that illusion, even though we know it's an illusion, that we're the king on the throne.
I could be totally wrong, but at least for me, I think that it explains a lot. And, even knowing this, I still struggle. Sexually-charged imagery is everywhere and I have to remind myself, "It's not real. Indulging your imagination will take you to bad places that are hard to climb out of"
We know it's bad for us, we don't want to do it but we keep falling back into it. Why does it have such a hold on us?
In MDG, we talked a bit about how common the problem of lust is, really not surprising given that our congregation has young men in their early 20's. I would be more surprised (and frankly a little weirded out) if our church was full of young men utterly disinterested by girls. Moreover I would say the scope is much, much larger, to wit;
1. Eastlake church recently hosted a debate with Ron Jeremy and
2. this article popped up on CNN.
Again, not trying to minimize things at all, but just that we, at UNL, aren't freaks for confronting the same demons as the rest of the male population.
I wasn't always interested in God. It basically took both of my parents dying, my job nearly being axed and the birth of 2 kids for me to really perk up. In my not-so-interested in God days, I've seen my share of porn, strip clubs, bars, etc.
If you read the links above, everything that Pastor Meeks and Ryan Buckingham sounds right to me. But on my own, I been thinking about why porn holds onto mens' minds the way it does and I have a theory. There's obviously a biological component to it. But on top of that, there is an aspect that lines up very much with a Christian understanding of sin.
We know Matthew 22:36-40, so we can probably figure that when we love other things the way we are supposed to love God instead of God, that's the quintessence of sin. Porn and strip clubs and other lustful endeavors sell a fantasy, they themselves will tell you so. When you're into them, you're indulging a fantasy that you're something special. You imagine it's you and that this desirable girl(s) (or guy(s), I suppose) needs and wants you because you just got that special something and something about you is just that fulfilling. Again, I hope I'm not taking this into like, a bad place, but the most intoxicating strip clubs aren't necessarily the ones with the prettiest girls. More often than not, they're the ones with the best saleswomen (who most convincingly sell you the fantasy.)
The subtext is we get to be God. We imagine that we're the ones being worshipped and adored. We love and cling to that fantasy that we're a virile tower of Awesome that is desirable and fulfilling to the woman (or women or men, whatever you perv. just kidding) who is so lucky as to worship before us. And, like a lot of other sin, when it's done, instead of being satisfied, we come back wanting even more. By looking for more, we're saying we want to be enslaved. We want to live in fantasyland.
In sexual sin, in addition to all of the terrible consequences that it wreaks on society and interpersonal relationships and in a man's view of women, it twists and warps a man's heart. We can't stop craving that illusion, even though we know it's an illusion, that we're the king on the throne.
I could be totally wrong, but at least for me, I think that it explains a lot. And, even knowing this, I still struggle. Sexually-charged imagery is everywhere and I have to remind myself, "It's not real. Indulging your imagination will take you to bad places that are hard to climb out of"
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Mark 10:17-31
Some days, I really feel like the rich man; putting on a good show, doing all the right things on the list...but my heart still holds onto it's idols, money just being one of many.
But there it is, right there on the page. When push comes to shove and the time comes to do as you say you believe, what is the state of your heart? Can you expel the other false idols of your heart?
If God told me to sell everything, move the family to Kenya and spread the good news, could I?
Karen and I used to attend another church where the elders and pastors were all these amazing young folks who went to schools like Berkley and Harvard. They were doctors and MBA's and, here is the amazing part (to me): They started churches by just praying about it and then moving to cities all over the US (and other places too, like Uzbekistan) and taking whatever jobs in those cities to obey what God convicted them to do. The jobs, opportunities, their families: all of that was a distant secondary concern to obedience to God's word.
I was, and still am, so envious of those that have faith so strong.
But there it is, right there on the page. When push comes to shove and the time comes to do as you say you believe, what is the state of your heart? Can you expel the other false idols of your heart?
If God told me to sell everything, move the family to Kenya and spread the good news, could I?
Karen and I used to attend another church where the elders and pastors were all these amazing young folks who went to schools like Berkley and Harvard. They were doctors and MBA's and, here is the amazing part (to me): They started churches by just praying about it and then moving to cities all over the US (and other places too, like Uzbekistan) and taking whatever jobs in those cities to obey what God convicted them to do. The jobs, opportunities, their families: all of that was a distant secondary concern to obedience to God's word.
I was, and still am, so envious of those that have faith so strong.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Acts 26: 12-19
Not gonna lie, at 1st glance I was a little bit bummed to see a passage we've read before in today's devotional.
But, flowing in today's stream of consciousness, I ended up in a different place than in January.
First, I wondered, does Paul's testimony here mirror any experience I've had? Jesus has never come down and like, overtly told me what to do. But do I ever find myself being pre-Paul Saul, persecuting or bashing Christians?
Maybe. I saw these guys and they disgusted me. Are they Christians? Do they actually follow the same Christ I try to follow?
Last night, Sam Cha mentioned a conversation w/ Pastor Ben, referencing "knowing them by their fruits", which I Bing-searched this AM and is Matthew 7:16, talking about false prophets. Those yutzes aren't claiming to be prophets, but if they're throwing crosses at the guy, well, they're definitely proclaiming something ...in the same, general zip code of Christ's neighborhood.
What are the fruits? I remembered a Tim Keller sermon mentioning fruits of the Spirit. Bing told me to see Galatians 5:22-23), said fruits are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
*So, I feel more assured now if my rebuke-a-Christian-reflex kicks in, recognizing whether or not it's justified: if someone's acting from a place that they proclaim to be from Christ, what type of fruit is that someone bearing? Is it one of the above? Because if it's not, the place you're coming from isn't Christ...
*In looking this up, I also found Matthew 7:1-6 about hypocrisy, which is a good warning that I need to always make sure that I'm coming from a place that is Spirit-rooted in origin. My rebuke should bear the very fruit I observe to be lacking. For instance with the guys above, I don't think it would be wrong to rebuke them. But it should not be to gloat in spiritual superiority. It should be to help them get back aligned with the Spirit.
But, flowing in today's stream of consciousness, I ended up in a different place than in January.
First, I wondered, does Paul's testimony here mirror any experience I've had? Jesus has never come down and like, overtly told me what to do. But do I ever find myself being pre-Paul Saul, persecuting or bashing Christians?
Maybe. I saw these guys and they disgusted me. Are they Christians? Do they actually follow the same Christ I try to follow?
Last night, Sam Cha mentioned a conversation w/ Pastor Ben, referencing "knowing them by their fruits", which I Bing-searched this AM and is Matthew 7:16, talking about false prophets. Those yutzes aren't claiming to be prophets, but if they're throwing crosses at the guy, well, they're definitely proclaiming something ...in the same, general zip code of Christ's neighborhood.
What are the fruits? I remembered a Tim Keller sermon mentioning fruits of the Spirit. Bing told me to see Galatians 5:22-23), said fruits are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
*So, I feel more assured now if my rebuke-a-Christian-reflex kicks in, recognizing whether or not it's justified: if someone's acting from a place that they proclaim to be from Christ, what type of fruit is that someone bearing? Is it one of the above? Because if it's not, the place you're coming from isn't Christ...
*In looking this up, I also found Matthew 7:1-6 about hypocrisy, which is a good warning that I need to always make sure that I'm coming from a place that is Spirit-rooted in origin. My rebuke should bear the very fruit I observe to be lacking. For instance with the guys above, I don't think it would be wrong to rebuke them. But it should not be to gloat in spiritual superiority. It should be to help them get back aligned with the Spirit.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
John 6:60-71
1. I've been trying to put together my testimony for MDG, and man I'm too verbose. I feel like everything is interlinked and required but if I touch on everything, it'll be like a 30 minute blabfest. And no one wants that...
2. Wasn't actively trying to prayer-walk this morning, but with the folks I always see where I eat my breakfast, I found something endearing about just about everyone. For the most part, they're people I don't normally have any conversation with. I think I felt a little bit of how God feels for those guys.
Anyways...
I felt like today's devotional sort of jumped in half-ways to a program already in progress. It starts off with the disciples saying, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" I imagine them scratching their heads and kinda just milling around looking at each other.
Eh, need to rewind to the actual the hard teaching part... So I jumped back and saw this:
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
OK, I see how this could be hard.
If you're not really savvy to what Jesus is talking about, it sounds kinda...gross. Cannibalistic and...I dunno. A weird way to phrase things in church?
If you did know exactly what Jesus was talking about, if you had regarded him before as "a wise rabbi" well, now the line is unambiguously in the sand and it's not just about Jesus the teacher anymore. Do you believe he is divine? The One everyone's been waiting for? That's a much bigger leap.
Two other things that stuck out:
1. Verse 65: Is Jesus talking about God's Elect/predestination thing? Existential mobius strips give me nosebleeds.
2. Verse 70: John doesn't mince words when it comes to Judas. Not that he wasn't like, maybe the worst guy ever. But compared to the Matthew, Mark and Luke, John definitely has the most scathing characterizations of Judas.
2. Wasn't actively trying to prayer-walk this morning, but with the folks I always see where I eat my breakfast, I found something endearing about just about everyone. For the most part, they're people I don't normally have any conversation with. I think I felt a little bit of how God feels for those guys.
Anyways...
I felt like today's devotional sort of jumped in half-ways to a program already in progress. It starts off with the disciples saying, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" I imagine them scratching their heads and kinda just milling around looking at each other.
Eh, need to rewind to the actual the hard teaching part... So I jumped back and saw this:
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
OK, I see how this could be hard.
If you're not really savvy to what Jesus is talking about, it sounds kinda...gross. Cannibalistic and...I dunno. A weird way to phrase things in church?
If you did know exactly what Jesus was talking about, if you had regarded him before as "a wise rabbi" well, now the line is unambiguously in the sand and it's not just about Jesus the teacher anymore. Do you believe he is divine? The One everyone's been waiting for? That's a much bigger leap.
Two other things that stuck out:
1. Verse 65: Is Jesus talking about God's Elect/predestination thing? Existential mobius strips give me nosebleeds.
2. Verse 70: John doesn't mince words when it comes to Judas. Not that he wasn't like, maybe the worst guy ever. But compared to the Matthew, Mark and Luke, John definitely has the most scathing characterizations of Judas.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Galations 2:20
There is no Oliver. There is only The-Christbot-that-used-to-be-Oliver.
It's funnier when you hear it voiced by my inner-dialogue.
More seriously, faith has been a concept I've been trying to wrap my brain around lately.
To me, the 2b definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary is actually the most meaningful connotation as applied to Christianity:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
The one above I think helps me understand it better, but there is a more Christian-specific one in 2a:
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
The one aspect of faith that I am more comfortable with is the idea that I can't prove that Jesus was who he said was, yet I believe it.
But there's another aspect, the practical application of faith, and that's the one that's more challenging for me. K & I have been listening over the last couple days to Tim Keller's sermon about Abram and he says that one aspect of following the call of God is the volitional; meaning doing what God calls you to do, without understanding where or why and you really don't know how it's going to end. If you understood the where's and why's and how things would end or turn out then, by definition, it's not faith. It's something else...
Abraham doesn't understand why he's called to Canaan, but he goes. He doesn't understand why God calls him to sacrifice Isaac, but he faithfully obeys.
How do I know God's calling? If He answers and the answer frightens me, will God strengthen my conviction if I ask for my cup to passeth from me, however trivial it is by comparison with His?
Here's a question of faith: Jesus knew that he would die on the cross and he knew why. Did he know that God would raise him up again?
On the other hand, maybe it's not always such a sensational act of faith like venturing into unknown lands or child sacrifice. Couldn't faith sometimes be manifested in more mundane callings?
Maybe calling isn't necessarily something that always works on a conscious level?
In Steve Jobs' Stanford excellent commencement speech, he talks about connecting the dots:
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
He is describing faith. And, not saying that Steve Jobs was called by God to create Apple, but it's definitely an example of how faith can power us to fulfill promises we never dreamed possible, but made possible because we just did based on belief...
It's funnier when you hear it voiced by my inner-dialogue.
More seriously, faith has been a concept I've been trying to wrap my brain around lately.
To me, the 2b definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary is actually the most meaningful connotation as applied to Christianity:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
The one above I think helps me understand it better, but there is a more Christian-specific one in 2a:
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
The one aspect of faith that I am more comfortable with is the idea that I can't prove that Jesus was who he said was, yet I believe it.
But there's another aspect, the practical application of faith, and that's the one that's more challenging for me. K & I have been listening over the last couple days to Tim Keller's sermon about Abram and he says that one aspect of following the call of God is the volitional; meaning doing what God calls you to do, without understanding where or why and you really don't know how it's going to end. If you understood the where's and why's and how things would end or turn out then, by definition, it's not faith. It's something else...
Abraham doesn't understand why he's called to Canaan, but he goes. He doesn't understand why God calls him to sacrifice Isaac, but he faithfully obeys.
How do I know God's calling? If He answers and the answer frightens me, will God strengthen my conviction if I ask for my cup to passeth from me, however trivial it is by comparison with His?
Here's a question of faith: Jesus knew that he would die on the cross and he knew why. Did he know that God would raise him up again?
On the other hand, maybe it's not always such a sensational act of faith like venturing into unknown lands or child sacrifice. Couldn't faith sometimes be manifested in more mundane callings?
Maybe calling isn't necessarily something that always works on a conscious level?
In Steve Jobs' Stanford excellent commencement speech, he talks about connecting the dots:
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
He is describing faith. And, not saying that Steve Jobs was called by God to create Apple, but it's definitely an example of how faith can power us to fulfill promises we never dreamed possible, but made possible because we just did based on belief...
Monday, March 7, 2011
Romans 8:31-39
Verses 33 & 34 remind me of Martin Luther King's open letter from the Birmingham jail to a group of ministers who wrote him to basically rebuke him for his non-violent protests.
1. MLK's sitting in jail which, in itself, is a societal condemnation of his actions.
2. His fellow pastors are writing open letters, telling him that he is wrong.
3. I'm sure that there must've been people even within his own movement who were getting tired of the dogs and hoses and the police brutality.
But, MLK stood his ground and knew exactly why he was justified. He drew historical and Biblical precedence from Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as well as negative examples in the "legality" of Hitler in WW2 Germany.
The section of the letter about the white moderate also reminds me of a recent verse I heard, Revelations 3:15:
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth
Off the cuff thoughts on Verses 35-39:
1. Verse 35 resonates with an understanding that's been popping up a lot lately for me; that faith doesn't make hardship disappear, it galvanizes us to endure hardship.
2. Verse 38 is a sort of, reassurance that God's love for us is steadfast. Kind of crazy that from God's end, nothing is able to break his love for us. But from our end, we are super-prone to putting up idols and distractions and diversions in place of him.
1. MLK's sitting in jail which, in itself, is a societal condemnation of his actions.
2. His fellow pastors are writing open letters, telling him that he is wrong.
3. I'm sure that there must've been people even within his own movement who were getting tired of the dogs and hoses and the police brutality.
But, MLK stood his ground and knew exactly why he was justified. He drew historical and Biblical precedence from Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as well as negative examples in the "legality" of Hitler in WW2 Germany.
The section of the letter about the white moderate also reminds me of a recent verse I heard, Revelations 3:15:
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth
Off the cuff thoughts on Verses 35-39:
1. Verse 35 resonates with an understanding that's been popping up a lot lately for me; that faith doesn't make hardship disappear, it galvanizes us to endure hardship.
2. Verse 38 is a sort of, reassurance that God's love for us is steadfast. Kind of crazy that from God's end, nothing is able to break his love for us. But from our end, we are super-prone to putting up idols and distractions and diversions in place of him.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
2 Corinthians 6:1-13
The BibleGateway commentaries point to Paul asking the Corinthians to open their hearts to him as he has to them. I've heard something like this dynamic discussed once before when Dr Choung visited and asked us to support & encourage Pastor Ben. He emphasized that a pastor needs to keep minstering from "his overflow" and continually be rejuvenated and replenished.
It's our way of "taking care" of our shepherd.
This past Saturday while Karen took Elliott skiing, I took Colby inner-tubing at Snoqualmie. I went down the hills with him, since he's a small guy and would be scared to go down by himself. On one run, my weight was displaced to one side and I felt myself tipping the tube over. So I let go and fell off while the tube slid off. Still in the inner tube, Colby, with a scared and confused look, watched me as he continued to glide down the rest of the hill. I got back up and hooked our tube back onto the tow rope and we rode the way back up the hill. Partways up, he stood up and hugged onto me. I laughed and asked him why. He said, "I hold you, so you don't fall down!"
For little moments like that, I feel like I can deal with any amount of bed-wetting, tantrums, etc. I hope all pastors (including my own highly-valued shepherd, PB) get renewed by their own little moments.
It's our way of "taking care" of our shepherd.
This past Saturday while Karen took Elliott skiing, I took Colby inner-tubing at Snoqualmie. I went down the hills with him, since he's a small guy and would be scared to go down by himself. On one run, my weight was displaced to one side and I felt myself tipping the tube over. So I let go and fell off while the tube slid off. Still in the inner tube, Colby, with a scared and confused look, watched me as he continued to glide down the rest of the hill. I got back up and hooked our tube back onto the tow rope and we rode the way back up the hill. Partways up, he stood up and hugged onto me. I laughed and asked him why. He said, "I hold you, so you don't fall down!"
For little moments like that, I feel like I can deal with any amount of bed-wetting, tantrums, etc. I hope all pastors (including my own highly-valued shepherd, PB) get renewed by their own little moments.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Acts 20:17-38
Today's passage converges with a few other things I've seen and been reading.
Jungi posted this video of a Francis Chan sermon
Then, I watched this video of Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris interviewing Reverend Chan on his post-Cornerstone plans.
I've also started reading The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus, by Peter Gomes.
It's weird, I can almost "feel" my perception of the gospel shifting.
I can't really get down everything that I'm trying to concurrently process, but some thoughts:
1. What Pastor Chan is doing really doesn't seem that strange or off-the-beaten path when you think of Paul. Why don't more people do things like what he's doing?
2. Probably because the gospel is a wildly, up-ending and subversive revolution. There's something very strange to me that the modern day church has become a bulwark of the status quo.
3. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about money. Or sex for that matter. What's bad is when man's perception of things tied to money (including themselves) warps.
4. Paul called it even back then. The church inevitably becomes infected by people preaching a sleepy, complacent, diluted, no-wave-making-parts only gospel.
Tired, I gotta come back to this later...
Jungi posted this video of a Francis Chan sermon
Then, I watched this video of Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris interviewing Reverend Chan on his post-Cornerstone plans.
I've also started reading The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus, by Peter Gomes.
It's weird, I can almost "feel" my perception of the gospel shifting.
I can't really get down everything that I'm trying to concurrently process, but some thoughts:
1. What Pastor Chan is doing really doesn't seem that strange or off-the-beaten path when you think of Paul. Why don't more people do things like what he's doing?
2. Probably because the gospel is a wildly, up-ending and subversive revolution. There's something very strange to me that the modern day church has become a bulwark of the status quo.
3. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about money. Or sex for that matter. What's bad is when man's perception of things tied to money (including themselves) warps.
4. Paul called it even back then. The church inevitably becomes infected by people preaching a sleepy, complacent, diluted, no-wave-making-parts only gospel.
Tired, I gotta come back to this later...
Friday, March 4, 2011
Acts 20:7-16
Man, what a devotional to start off the newly-upped high-stakes accountability game.
I say this a lot, but I truly don't get today's passage. Rather, I don't get what I'm supposed to be learning/understanding.
To recap:
Paul talks to people.
Boy falls out of window and dies.
Nevermind, he's not dead.
Paul keeps talking.
Paul goes to some other places, but not Ephesus.
Re. the boy, truthfully, part of me feels like, "What did you expect, sitting in a window 3 stories off the ground? And where were your parents?"
The commentaries on BibleGateway say that the boy straight-up died and Paul resurrected him. Maybe it reads differently in Greek, but I didn't really get that. It's not always easy to tell if someone who might be dead, is dead.
Isn't Luke a doctor though? Yeah, but from what I gather, he's recording these events based off of oral traditions; he wasn't necessarily there himself. If he was there, it'd be weird b/c everyone would've probably had a, "We need a doctor!"-moment and looked at Luke and Luke would've been like, "I can't right now, I gotta make sure I write down what happens here..."
Paul definitely seemed like a busy guy, going from city to city on what sounds like a pretty tight schedule. I think I should probably read the entire chapter, just to get a sense of the events that lead up to this and generally what is going on.
I'll be very interested to see today's devotional e-mail. I have no insights at all into this passage...
I say this a lot, but I truly don't get today's passage. Rather, I don't get what I'm supposed to be learning/understanding.
To recap:
Paul talks to people.
Boy falls out of window and dies.
Nevermind, he's not dead.
Paul keeps talking.
Paul goes to some other places, but not Ephesus.
Re. the boy, truthfully, part of me feels like, "What did you expect, sitting in a window 3 stories off the ground? And where were your parents?"
The commentaries on BibleGateway say that the boy straight-up died and Paul resurrected him. Maybe it reads differently in Greek, but I didn't really get that. It's not always easy to tell if someone who might be dead, is dead.
Isn't Luke a doctor though? Yeah, but from what I gather, he's recording these events based off of oral traditions; he wasn't necessarily there himself. If he was there, it'd be weird b/c everyone would've probably had a, "We need a doctor!"-moment and looked at Luke and Luke would've been like, "I can't right now, I gotta make sure I write down what happens here..."
Paul definitely seemed like a busy guy, going from city to city on what sounds like a pretty tight schedule. I think I should probably read the entire chapter, just to get a sense of the events that lead up to this and generally what is going on.
I'll be very interested to see today's devotional e-mail. I have no insights at all into this passage...
Thursday, March 3, 2011
John 21:15-19
On my own reading, I couldn't make heads or tails out of this passage. I read some commentary on BibleGateway.com and I think that helped a bit. Specifically;
1. In Greek, there were differences in the word for "love" in the 1st two times Jesus asks Peter, and the last time.
2. The commentary points out that he refers to him as "Simon" not "Peter"; almost sort of leading him in a Socratic way to take up the discipleship identity Jesus has prepared him for.
3. Unlike the parables, this passage doesn't pack as much self-contained context. There are questions formed and delivered in in a way that hearken specifically to Peter's denial.
And just in general, aspects of the entire chapter seem strange.
How come they don't recognize Jesus?
Why does Peter jump out of the boat? Seems like something that has nothing to do with anything.
Some people question why they were fishing in the first place, but that's not as much of a non-sequitur to me. The guy was a fisherman to begin with and, if you're hungry and that's what you know how to do, who's not gonna fish to fill their tummy?
As a general kind of comment, Peter is kind of a fascinating character. Kind of headstrong, brash, well-meaning, but maybe a little more naive than the rest? I think I like him...
1. In Greek, there were differences in the word for "love" in the 1st two times Jesus asks Peter, and the last time.
2. The commentary points out that he refers to him as "Simon" not "Peter"; almost sort of leading him in a Socratic way to take up the discipleship identity Jesus has prepared him for.
3. Unlike the parables, this passage doesn't pack as much self-contained context. There are questions formed and delivered in in a way that hearken specifically to Peter's denial.
And just in general, aspects of the entire chapter seem strange.
How come they don't recognize Jesus?
Why does Peter jump out of the boat? Seems like something that has nothing to do with anything.
Some people question why they were fishing in the first place, but that's not as much of a non-sequitur to me. The guy was a fisherman to begin with and, if you're hungry and that's what you know how to do, who's not gonna fish to fill their tummy?
As a general kind of comment, Peter is kind of a fascinating character. Kind of headstrong, brash, well-meaning, but maybe a little more naive than the rest? I think I like him...
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
John 21-1-14
I thought a lot about yesterday's devotional scripture.
Very cool how some of the questions from yesterday's devotional dovetail into today's devotional.
One of the questions I had from yesterday's devotional was this idea of how do we approach God with things that are hurting us or on our minds, without treating him like a wish-machine.
There's some interesting ideas (maybe answers) that come out of today's devotional.
1. He already knows. In the 1st few verses, it doesn't seem like the disciples know Jesus is who He is, but Jesus is the one to prod them about not catching fish. They didn't have to ask Him, they didn't even know at that point to ask him: He already knew! Then, He went on to provide what they needed.
2. It's not stupid or ulterior-motived, to not-bring God the "small" or everyday stuff. It doesn't get any more everyday than, "I don't want to starve"
3. Sometimes, he could be working even as we speak, and we just don't know it. Now, the disciples did figure it out after the fact, but while Jesus was changing things for them, they didn't know what was happening. Just that some guy told them to try something different.
So what's the point? Why ask if he already knows? Maybe just to have the dialogue. Maybe God just wants us to set the time aside and spend it with Him. Even if He knows whats best, and even if sometimes what we want isn't what we need, maybe He just is happy when we make the time to share our (sometimes silly, sometimes legit) worries, thoughts and our lives.
That makes sense to me. I don't talk to or hang out with my friends/family only because they need something from me or I need something from them (advice, something else, whatever). We spend time together and share one anothers' concerns, fears, joys, everything b/c... that's what it is to have a connection with someone. Some times (a lot of times) I do have a different opinion about things we talk about. Mostly I just appreciate the trust we have in being able to share them. At the end of the day, it's what God wants and, sometimes unbeknownst to even ourselves, it's what we want.
In other words, it seems like it's more important that we invite God/Jesus into a regular relationship, and less important (though still obviously important) what we spend it doing.
I think the high-potential for ulterior motives is what celebrities and powerful people are wary of; that when they start to have to look at every single person and question the motives for the interaction, it's poisonous and exhausting.
My thinking yesterday was processing God too much through the Deity, Lord, Savior facets at the expense of the personal Father, Friend, Bridegroom facets.
It's weird, I'm sure I've heard all of this before...Was I sleeping during that sermon? (J/K PB! :-) )
Another sort of corollary to the 3 ideas above, I read an essay by the recently passed Harvard chaplain:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2010/sep/12/ed-gomes12-ar-499733/
4. As Christians, our lives are not easier. In many respects, life is harder. But, hardship is reason for, if not celebration, at least remembrance and reverence! It's under those circumstances that we most search for Him. Reverend Gomes says it better than I can:
When the Jewish people celebrate the Days of Awe, beginning their new year and atoning for their sins, they always remember two things. First, they remember the troubles and the tribulations through which they have passed, and they recite the history of those sorrows and troubles. They remind themselves and one another, and everybody else, of how they have been formed and forged through the experience of trial and tribulation.
The second thing they remember is how the Lord delivered them out of those troubles and helped them to endure and bear and eventually overcome them. They remind themselves of it over and over again.
...
The history of the Jews in the world is not a history of escape from trouble; would that it were, but it is not. It is the record of endurance through tribulation, an endurance that would have been impossible without God.
Very cool how some of the questions from yesterday's devotional dovetail into today's devotional.
One of the questions I had from yesterday's devotional was this idea of how do we approach God with things that are hurting us or on our minds, without treating him like a wish-machine.
There's some interesting ideas (maybe answers) that come out of today's devotional.
1. He already knows. In the 1st few verses, it doesn't seem like the disciples know Jesus is who He is, but Jesus is the one to prod them about not catching fish. They didn't have to ask Him, they didn't even know at that point to ask him: He already knew! Then, He went on to provide what they needed.
2. It's not stupid or ulterior-motived, to not-bring God the "small" or everyday stuff. It doesn't get any more everyday than, "I don't want to starve"
3. Sometimes, he could be working even as we speak, and we just don't know it. Now, the disciples did figure it out after the fact, but while Jesus was changing things for them, they didn't know what was happening. Just that some guy told them to try something different.
So what's the point? Why ask if he already knows? Maybe just to have the dialogue. Maybe God just wants us to set the time aside and spend it with Him. Even if He knows whats best, and even if sometimes what we want isn't what we need, maybe He just is happy when we make the time to share our (sometimes silly, sometimes legit) worries, thoughts and our lives.
That makes sense to me. I don't talk to or hang out with my friends/family only because they need something from me or I need something from them (advice, something else, whatever). We spend time together and share one anothers' concerns, fears, joys, everything b/c... that's what it is to have a connection with someone. Some times (a lot of times) I do have a different opinion about things we talk about. Mostly I just appreciate the trust we have in being able to share them. At the end of the day, it's what God wants and, sometimes unbeknownst to even ourselves, it's what we want.
In other words, it seems like it's more important that we invite God/Jesus into a regular relationship, and less important (though still obviously important) what we spend it doing.
I think the high-potential for ulterior motives is what celebrities and powerful people are wary of; that when they start to have to look at every single person and question the motives for the interaction, it's poisonous and exhausting.
My thinking yesterday was processing God too much through the Deity, Lord, Savior facets at the expense of the personal Father, Friend, Bridegroom facets.
It's weird, I'm sure I've heard all of this before...Was I sleeping during that sermon? (J/K PB! :-) )
Another sort of corollary to the 3 ideas above, I read an essay by the recently passed Harvard chaplain:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2010/sep/12/ed-gomes12-ar-499733/
4. As Christians, our lives are not easier. In many respects, life is harder. But, hardship is reason for, if not celebration, at least remembrance and reverence! It's under those circumstances that we most search for Him. Reverend Gomes says it better than I can:
When the Jewish people celebrate the Days of Awe, beginning their new year and atoning for their sins, they always remember two things. First, they remember the troubles and the tribulations through which they have passed, and they recite the history of those sorrows and troubles. They remind themselves and one another, and everybody else, of how they have been formed and forged through the experience of trial and tribulation.
The second thing they remember is how the Lord delivered them out of those troubles and helped them to endure and bear and eventually overcome them. They remind themselves of it over and over again.
...
The history of the Jews in the world is not a history of escape from trouble; would that it were, but it is not. It is the record of endurance through tribulation, an endurance that would have been impossible without God.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Luke 18:35-43
Hello devotional blog, how are you? Long time no see, I'm sure all of my 0 readers have been waiting with bated breath for my next entry. Honestly, I have no excuse. 1 week after Ben talked about us reaching a sort of fatigue point in the MDG, I admit that it hit me. But I'm hoping I can catch up to, and climb back onto the wagon. :)
This devotional comes coincidentally after having an interesting conversation with friends and reading an interesting article.
The article: John Dominic Crossan asserts that Jesus was a regular guy who did heal and was revolutionary, but didn't actually raise from the dead.
The conversation: A friend and I were discussing a family member who always prays, for long stretches of time, in tongues.
And for me, this has been, and continues to be, a struggle in my faith: Acceptance of miracles, gifts and the supernatural.
Like John Crossan, I do believe that Jesus healed this man. I don't believe in tongues.
Unlike John Crossan, I do believe Jesus was who He said He was, and was resurrected. But I'm highly skeptical of miracles or healing performed by people today.
I can't really articulate why.
Maybe it's because I'm more comfortable with my faith in abstract and long-time ago, but not as comfortable with supernatural stuff happening here and now.
Maybe it's because there's no shortage of delusional dingbats, and it's easier for my brain to group everything not-mundane into the fraud/delusion bucket. Think: Jesus's face in toast, End of Days prophecies, those God-The-Mother nuts...
Maybe it's a protection-mechanism, from not wanting to be fooled/swindled and not wanting to be one of "those guys"
But where does that leave "my Jesus?" Is He safe/accessible as the doer of His miracles b/c He and His miracles are all in the past and not present with or in me?
Faith is complicated for me. I do believe in some things I can't prove, but only to a point and that point isn't very well-defined in my mind.
Another aspect of today's devotional that's a little murky for me; We never want to box God into what we think He'll do for us. We don't want to treat him like our wish-making slot machine. Why then, is it OK for the blind guy to ask Jesus for sight? I mean, OK...it's not the same thing as like, wishing for a Ferrari.
I get that; but as an example, I have out-of-work friends. I want to ask God to help them find new jobs, but is that putting God in a box? Shouldn't I be asking him to do what He knows to be best for those friends?
And if so, shouldn't the blind man have cried out, "Jesus! Do what You think is right!" instead of "Lord, let me see again."
Q's, Q's...
This devotional comes coincidentally after having an interesting conversation with friends and reading an interesting article.
The article: John Dominic Crossan asserts that Jesus was a regular guy who did heal and was revolutionary, but didn't actually raise from the dead.
The conversation: A friend and I were discussing a family member who always prays, for long stretches of time, in tongues.
And for me, this has been, and continues to be, a struggle in my faith: Acceptance of miracles, gifts and the supernatural.
Like John Crossan, I do believe that Jesus healed this man. I don't believe in tongues.
Unlike John Crossan, I do believe Jesus was who He said He was, and was resurrected. But I'm highly skeptical of miracles or healing performed by people today.
I can't really articulate why.
Maybe it's because I'm more comfortable with my faith in abstract and long-time ago, but not as comfortable with supernatural stuff happening here and now.
Maybe it's because there's no shortage of delusional dingbats, and it's easier for my brain to group everything not-mundane into the fraud/delusion bucket. Think: Jesus's face in toast, End of Days prophecies, those God-The-Mother nuts...
Maybe it's a protection-mechanism, from not wanting to be fooled/swindled and not wanting to be one of "those guys"
But where does that leave "my Jesus?" Is He safe/accessible as the doer of His miracles b/c He and His miracles are all in the past and not present with or in me?
Faith is complicated for me. I do believe in some things I can't prove, but only to a point and that point isn't very well-defined in my mind.
Another aspect of today's devotional that's a little murky for me; We never want to box God into what we think He'll do for us. We don't want to treat him like our wish-making slot machine. Why then, is it OK for the blind guy to ask Jesus for sight? I mean, OK...it's not the same thing as like, wishing for a Ferrari.
I get that; but as an example, I have out-of-work friends. I want to ask God to help them find new jobs, but is that putting God in a box? Shouldn't I be asking him to do what He knows to be best for those friends?
And if so, shouldn't the blind man have cried out, "Jesus! Do what You think is right!" instead of "Lord, let me see again."
Q's, Q's...
Friday, February 18, 2011
Matthew 26:36-46
This sounds stupid, but I think I had used to take the cross too lightly because, being God and all-powerful, dying didn't seem like as big a deal. You can do anything and just come back to life, like when you play a video game and you die. You can just restart.
But there it is in the description of the events at Gethsemane: Jesus' anguish and fear and ultimately, obedience.
Why did Peter fall asleep when Jesus asked him to stay awake with him? I'm guessing he didn't really grasp what was going to happen. It's interesting to me that, Jesus asks him to just stay with him and be awake with him. It reminds me that Jesus really was flesh and blood and not just some ethereal, higher-order being. He felt the same things you or I feel. He loved Peter and, knowing what was coming, He looked to hold tight to someone he loved.
And of course, Peter fails. Twice.
In my favorite episode (Out of Gas) of my favorite show (Firefly), there's a scene when the captain's sending his crew out in shuttles (think: life boats) so they can stay alive as long as possible. He stays alone on the ship, on the chance that someone might answer a distress beacon and a crewmember says, "Come with us! This isn't the sailing the high seas, you don't have to go down with the ship! You don't have to die alone!"
He replies, "Everyone dies alone."
Yes, I know it's a TV show and written by a person, trying to tell a story. But there is an emotional truth there. For example, I know that when my mom and dad were sick, there was a point when I stopped holding out hope for a miracle and just felt like the best I could do was to be with them, or make sure someone in my family was with them, when they finally passed.
It's terrible, the thought of just being alone, no one really caring enough to stay with you when you're about to fall into an endless, black abyss. And, after listening to a lot of Tim Keller, I am convinced that what Jesus was cut off from was a lot more terrifying since, to begin with, he had a much more visceral connection with his Father than we do.
I don't know that I'll ever understand what was so worth-saving about people, since every single person seems to me to be about 94%-unworthy, 5%-nauseating, 1%-worthy. I'm thankful, but I don't understand...
But there it is in the description of the events at Gethsemane: Jesus' anguish and fear and ultimately, obedience.
Why did Peter fall asleep when Jesus asked him to stay awake with him? I'm guessing he didn't really grasp what was going to happen. It's interesting to me that, Jesus asks him to just stay with him and be awake with him. It reminds me that Jesus really was flesh and blood and not just some ethereal, higher-order being. He felt the same things you or I feel. He loved Peter and, knowing what was coming, He looked to hold tight to someone he loved.
And of course, Peter fails. Twice.
In my favorite episode (Out of Gas) of my favorite show (Firefly), there's a scene when the captain's sending his crew out in shuttles (think: life boats) so they can stay alive as long as possible. He stays alone on the ship, on the chance that someone might answer a distress beacon and a crewmember says, "Come with us! This isn't the sailing the high seas, you don't have to go down with the ship! You don't have to die alone!"
He replies, "Everyone dies alone."
Yes, I know it's a TV show and written by a person, trying to tell a story. But there is an emotional truth there. For example, I know that when my mom and dad were sick, there was a point when I stopped holding out hope for a miracle and just felt like the best I could do was to be with them, or make sure someone in my family was with them, when they finally passed.
It's terrible, the thought of just being alone, no one really caring enough to stay with you when you're about to fall into an endless, black abyss. And, after listening to a lot of Tim Keller, I am convinced that what Jesus was cut off from was a lot more terrifying since, to begin with, he had a much more visceral connection with his Father than we do.
I don't know that I'll ever understand what was so worth-saving about people, since every single person seems to me to be about 94%-unworthy, 5%-nauseating, 1%-worthy. I'm thankful, but I don't understand...
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Ephesians 5:1-20
In this chapter, Paul is outlining things people do and ways people act, which are in direct conflict with belief in Christ.
It doesn't seem so much to be, "do (or don't do) these things, and you won't get your passport to Heaven"
Rather, it's, "if you accept that Christ loved you, these things/acts are unnatural and contradictory to the love you've accepted"
There's a lot of metaphorical use of "light" in this passage.
In v.8, the NRSV says, "you were darkness, but now...you are light..."
Followers of Christ are called "light" and "children of light"- maybe meant to instill the idea of embodying, being the physical manifestation of light, and spreading that light.
In v.9 "...the fruit of the light..."
There's the idea of the result of exposure to light being restored to "good and right and true"
v. 11 "...the unfruitful works of darkness..."
The flip side of the above, that if light bears fruit, darkness bears its anti-fruit...
v 13-14 "...everything exposed by the light...everything that becomes visible is light."
And the goodness and correctness of exposing dark things to light in order to make them visible thereby turning them back to "light"
Still churning in my mind, hopefully I'll have some good spiritual butter by the end of the day. :)
It doesn't seem so much to be, "do (or don't do) these things, and you won't get your passport to Heaven"
Rather, it's, "if you accept that Christ loved you, these things/acts are unnatural and contradictory to the love you've accepted"
There's a lot of metaphorical use of "light" in this passage.
In v.8, the NRSV says, "you were darkness, but now...you are light..."
Followers of Christ are called "light" and "children of light"- maybe meant to instill the idea of embodying, being the physical manifestation of light, and spreading that light.
In v.9 "...the fruit of the light..."
There's the idea of the result of exposure to light being restored to "good and right and true"
v. 11 "...the unfruitful works of darkness..."
The flip side of the above, that if light bears fruit, darkness bears its anti-fruit...
v 13-14 "...everything exposed by the light...everything that becomes visible is light."
And the goodness and correctness of exposing dark things to light in order to make them visible thereby turning them back to "light"
Still churning in my mind, hopefully I'll have some good spiritual butter by the end of the day. :)
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Romans 14:1-12
Wow, another challenging devotional.
Truth be told, I generally find the Christians at my workplace to be unlikable.
They're Republican sock puppets and spend a lot more time hand-wringing about big government and taxes and wealth redistribution than about helping the poor or the disadvantaged.
One guy is the type who will spend all night in flame wars with atheists on user interest group distribution lists. He's the kind of guy who likes to stand over someone and gloat that he won and he was smarter.
Another guy clearly gives off the vibe that, he is a superior person for his spirituality.
Yet, they are both Christians. I feel like Paul is almost telling me, "spend less time worrying about how they live as Christians and worry about your own self."
But isn't the weak-faithed vegetable eater too dependent on works versus faith? Yes, at the end of the day, it's between that person and God, but isn't it a clearly wrong spiritual place to be in? Maybe I need more context. I'm ordering that study bible today... :)
Truth be told, I generally find the Christians at my workplace to be unlikable.
They're Republican sock puppets and spend a lot more time hand-wringing about big government and taxes and wealth redistribution than about helping the poor or the disadvantaged.
One guy is the type who will spend all night in flame wars with atheists on user interest group distribution lists. He's the kind of guy who likes to stand over someone and gloat that he won and he was smarter.
Another guy clearly gives off the vibe that, he is a superior person for his spirituality.
Yet, they are both Christians. I feel like Paul is almost telling me, "spend less time worrying about how they live as Christians and worry about your own self."
But isn't the weak-faithed vegetable eater too dependent on works versus faith? Yes, at the end of the day, it's between that person and God, but isn't it a clearly wrong spiritual place to be in? Maybe I need more context. I'm ordering that study bible today... :)
Monday, February 14, 2011
Matthew 10:1-33
Before PB kicked off the inaugural UNL men's discipleship group, he & I talked about the idea that, some idea or teaching from studying Jesus will make us uncomfortable or challenge our preconceived notions of Jesus.
I readily accept some aspects of Jesus as a revolutionary. The way He has the greatest compassion for the suffering, the downtrodden. I'm onboard with His rejection of the world's allegiances and hierarchies for His father's.
Yet, some aspects are more difficult to accept and this devotional chapter is very frank about them. The life of the original disciples was difficult. They were not to take payment, nor generally worry much for their material comfort. They were told they would make powerful enemies, understand that those who did not listen would be condemned to terrible suffering and drive families against one another. They were to be prepared to give up their lives in the faithful fulfillment of Jesus' commission to spread the word.
Honestly, I'm probably too preoccupied with material comfort. Not in the sense of fantasizing about driving sweet rides or sipping champagne. Not even about the social stature you have as a wealthier person; I really don't care about that. But I do associate money with providing a (maybe illusory) sense of stability and security.
I don't enjoy the idea of the non-listeners burning in Hell. My parents never believed in Jesus, nor my grandmother who's still alive. I don't enjoy the idea of pitting son against father or brother against sister over faith. Though, to be accurate, Jesus never says, "Relish the day, and do a little victory dance, when families clash and break apart over Me."
A little outside of today's devotional is Mat 10:37, where Jesus outright says:
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Do I love Jesus more than Elliott & Colby? Man, I can tell you that it's not a slam dunk...
Basically it boils down to, "Drop everything you think is important to you, to spread My message. It, and you by proxy, will cause turmoil and division. You will be persecuted, probably jailed and possibly executed." That's what it takes to call yourself a disciple. Tough medicine...
I readily accept some aspects of Jesus as a revolutionary. The way He has the greatest compassion for the suffering, the downtrodden. I'm onboard with His rejection of the world's allegiances and hierarchies for His father's.
Yet, some aspects are more difficult to accept and this devotional chapter is very frank about them. The life of the original disciples was difficult. They were not to take payment, nor generally worry much for their material comfort. They were told they would make powerful enemies, understand that those who did not listen would be condemned to terrible suffering and drive families against one another. They were to be prepared to give up their lives in the faithful fulfillment of Jesus' commission to spread the word.
Honestly, I'm probably too preoccupied with material comfort. Not in the sense of fantasizing about driving sweet rides or sipping champagne. Not even about the social stature you have as a wealthier person; I really don't care about that. But I do associate money with providing a (maybe illusory) sense of stability and security.
I don't enjoy the idea of the non-listeners burning in Hell. My parents never believed in Jesus, nor my grandmother who's still alive. I don't enjoy the idea of pitting son against father or brother against sister over faith. Though, to be accurate, Jesus never says, "Relish the day, and do a little victory dance, when families clash and break apart over Me."
A little outside of today's devotional is Mat 10:37, where Jesus outright says:
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Do I love Jesus more than Elliott & Colby? Man, I can tell you that it's not a slam dunk...
Basically it boils down to, "Drop everything you think is important to you, to spread My message. It, and you by proxy, will cause turmoil and division. You will be persecuted, probably jailed and possibly executed." That's what it takes to call yourself a disciple. Tough medicine...
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Isaiah 40:1-26
Reading today's devotional was a reminder to me that God is to be trifled with. Sometimes I forget that. I tend to focus on how the He loves us and how He shares in our sorrows nature of Him.
But, He is the Creator of everything and, if He chose to, could whisk away human existence with a thought. He is eternal and powerful beyond the scope of human comprehension and, in consideration of those things, frankly He is to be feared and respected.
But, He is the Creator of everything and, if He chose to, could whisk away human existence with a thought. He is eternal and powerful beyond the scope of human comprehension and, in consideration of those things, frankly He is to be feared and respected.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Isaiah 40:27-31
Does God actively intervene in our daily lives? Does he actively renew us and make us stronger when we're weak? Seems like today's devotional answers, "Yes"
Honestly, I have a hard time with this. I'm sure there are Christian children, all over the world in terrible circumstances, who desperately pray for strength but they end up living and dying in horrifying ways.
You could rebut that scenario with the idea that their story isn't written, that in Heaven they won't suffer at all. But somehow that feels like, still not quite fair.
This sounds like the "Why do bad things happen to good people" question, but it's really not. It's about God's promise that, for those who wait for Him, he
will renew their strength. Granted, he doesn't say how or when, it just seems like sometimes, in my admittedly not-the-whole-picture view of things, sometimes the hurting faithful are left unrenewed.
Maybe then, that's the question of faith: how much you're willing to concede that you really don't always know the whole story or things might not be what they seem...
Maybe it's not exactly right to directly superimpose ourselves (today) as the intended audience that is addressed in this chapter. In other words, maybe these words were specifically for whom they were written for at the time, and we're supposed to understand it in that context.
Also, maybe I've misinterpreted the entire passage and it's specifically about renewing spiritual strength while waiting for Him...
I need to get a good study Bible.
Honestly, I have a hard time with this. I'm sure there are Christian children, all over the world in terrible circumstances, who desperately pray for strength but they end up living and dying in horrifying ways.
You could rebut that scenario with the idea that their story isn't written, that in Heaven they won't suffer at all. But somehow that feels like, still not quite fair.
This sounds like the "Why do bad things happen to good people" question, but it's really not. It's about God's promise that, for those who wait for Him, he
will renew their strength. Granted, he doesn't say how or when, it just seems like sometimes, in my admittedly not-the-whole-picture view of things, sometimes the hurting faithful are left unrenewed.
Maybe then, that's the question of faith: how much you're willing to concede that you really don't always know the whole story or things might not be what they seem...
Maybe it's not exactly right to directly superimpose ourselves (today) as the intended audience that is addressed in this chapter. In other words, maybe these words were specifically for whom they were written for at the time, and we're supposed to understand it in that context.
Also, maybe I've misinterpreted the entire passage and it's specifically about renewing spiritual strength while waiting for Him...
I need to get a good study Bible.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
1Thessalonians 5:12-28
Reading this closing of Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians reminded me of my mom's first letter to me when I went away from home for the first time for an overnight camp in 6th grade. The end of the letter is where you put the stuff you really don't want the other person to forget; the "if you don't remember anything else, remember this" stuff.
It makes such perfect sense and if you're like me, you find yourself nodding along as you read. But, if you are like me, it's a different animal when you have to apply it personally. Like when someone does something evil to you, you get that feeling of blood pounding in your ears and the only idea in your brain is settling the score. Or, when someone is recounting their umpteenth SOB story and you want to shout at them to quit being such a pathetic sissy. Or when you find yourself in a personal health or job crisis and, you really can't find that place in your heart that rejoices or gives thanks. When it comes time for real-life application, it's much harder to live it out than it is to agree while you're reading.
But, Paul's writing to a church, not a single person. I think this is why we need to worship God in a church; in a community of like-minded believers. When you're weak or you need to be reminded of the right thing, your community is supposed to be there to strengthen you. And, you're supposed to do likewise when members of your community are struggling. It's like the penguins all taking turns in the center and the outside of the huddle. No one is strong all of the time, but together, we can help keep one another faithful and living it out, rather than letting it stay on the page.
Maybe that's what this discipleship is about...
It makes such perfect sense and if you're like me, you find yourself nodding along as you read. But, if you are like me, it's a different animal when you have to apply it personally. Like when someone does something evil to you, you get that feeling of blood pounding in your ears and the only idea in your brain is settling the score. Or, when someone is recounting their umpteenth SOB story and you want to shout at them to quit being such a pathetic sissy. Or when you find yourself in a personal health or job crisis and, you really can't find that place in your heart that rejoices or gives thanks. When it comes time for real-life application, it's much harder to live it out than it is to agree while you're reading.
But, Paul's writing to a church, not a single person. I think this is why we need to worship God in a church; in a community of like-minded believers. When you're weak or you need to be reminded of the right thing, your community is supposed to be there to strengthen you. And, you're supposed to do likewise when members of your community are struggling. It's like the penguins all taking turns in the center and the outside of the huddle. No one is strong all of the time, but together, we can help keep one another faithful and living it out, rather than letting it stay on the page.
Maybe that's what this discipleship is about...
Friday, February 4, 2011
2 Corinthians 4:11-15
In these verses, Paul talks about being fearlessly faithful to Christ even in the face of death, being confident that if you were to die, just like Jesus you would be raised up as well.
It's hard to fathom in the here and now. First, living in America, even if you believe in Chuck Norris and wear tin foil hats and put on your underwear on the outside of your pants, no one can really "punish" you for any of that. Yesterday as we prayer-walked through the mall, the idea of going up to a random stranger talking about Christ, faith, hope...honestly it conjured mental images of folks who wander around the streets, handing out pamphlets and wearing sandwich boards.
But, are those guys the ones who are doing more of the right thing? Nowdays, it seems like the preferred avenue of evangelism is the "long sell." Cultivate a relationship, earn, if not trust, at least respect and try hard not to be weird. When the opportunity presents itself, put forth a dignified and gracious testimony that will fall on friendly and maybe receptive ears.
Are we lesser Christians than the early Corinthians? Paul wrote these words to prepare the Corinthians for the possibility of death in the name of Christ. It's almost like Paul feels emboldened to proclaim the gospel widely, because he's playing with house money; even if they crucify him, he's telling the Corinthians not to worry because they'll be raised up by God alongside Jesus anyways.
In my life, I won't die for proclaiming the gospel. At worst, they'll look at me and see the sandwich board guy. But instead of being more bold, I'm more reticent.
On the other hand, maybe the early Christians had more of a backed-into-a-corner mentality, where it was more of a "fight or flight" choice. Given those choices, maybe it was just simpler. I honestly don't think, there was anything "more special" about people from those days. Maybe not as much in this particular passage, but in other passages the topics Paul broaches indicate that the early church had similar church problems/dynamics as we do today. So, they probably weren't that much better or worse than we are now...People are, after all, people.
This is the first devotional blog I've written at night, before bed. I definitely feel like I can organize my thoughts a bit better, since I've had time to let it marinate on the mind... Maybe this week I'll try writing at night.
It's hard to fathom in the here and now. First, living in America, even if you believe in Chuck Norris and wear tin foil hats and put on your underwear on the outside of your pants, no one can really "punish" you for any of that. Yesterday as we prayer-walked through the mall, the idea of going up to a random stranger talking about Christ, faith, hope...honestly it conjured mental images of folks who wander around the streets, handing out pamphlets and wearing sandwich boards.
But, are those guys the ones who are doing more of the right thing? Nowdays, it seems like the preferred avenue of evangelism is the "long sell." Cultivate a relationship, earn, if not trust, at least respect and try hard not to be weird. When the opportunity presents itself, put forth a dignified and gracious testimony that will fall on friendly and maybe receptive ears.
Are we lesser Christians than the early Corinthians? Paul wrote these words to prepare the Corinthians for the possibility of death in the name of Christ. It's almost like Paul feels emboldened to proclaim the gospel widely, because he's playing with house money; even if they crucify him, he's telling the Corinthians not to worry because they'll be raised up by God alongside Jesus anyways.
In my life, I won't die for proclaiming the gospel. At worst, they'll look at me and see the sandwich board guy. But instead of being more bold, I'm more reticent.
On the other hand, maybe the early Christians had more of a backed-into-a-corner mentality, where it was more of a "fight or flight" choice. Given those choices, maybe it was just simpler. I honestly don't think, there was anything "more special" about people from those days. Maybe not as much in this particular passage, but in other passages the topics Paul broaches indicate that the early church had similar church problems/dynamics as we do today. So, they probably weren't that much better or worse than we are now...People are, after all, people.
This is the first devotional blog I've written at night, before bed. I definitely feel like I can organize my thoughts a bit better, since I've had time to let it marinate on the mind... Maybe this week I'll try writing at night.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
1 Corinthians 4:9-16
...there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends.
--Anton Ego, Ratatouille.
I read this verse probably 4 times before I thought to look up the definition of apostle (the 2nd one listed). It's not easy to be an early adopter (to borrow from techie parlance) of anything. Karen generally forbids me to buy the first generation of any new trinket. Remembering that Paul is writing here as one of the first Christians, made the entire passage a bit more understandable.
It's easy for a shall we say, "less-diligent" Christians like myself to forget that there was no precedence for Paul and the other apostles who were the first to do some of the very radical things they did for the sake of the gospel. They didn't just defend and champion the despised and lowest in society, they joined them. And, in his own words, "When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we speak kindly." Who did that? Who does that now? Darwin would have nosebleeds.
It's unlikely anyone up until then was doing this kind of thing. And if they were, it's even more unlikely they were doing it for an express purpose like bringing this type of good news: that God sent his son, in human form, to Earth to live, teach and ultimately suffer persecution, betrayal, humiliation and torture for no good Earthly reason, but to atone for the sin that prevents you or I from having the God-intended relationship with Him!
From the outside looking in, it's pretty easy to understand how it must've looked like "a spectacle" performed by "fools" This doesn't even account for "foolishness" like voluntarily-upside down crucifixion.
But all that is not for chest-thumping. In verse 16, Paul urges us "to be imitators of me" As crazy as it may look on the outside, it is good and correct for us to obey, suffer gladly, to be cast among the least of us, and to bless our persecutors for Jesus' sake...
Neither here nor there, but I found it kind of humanizing to see that, Paul felt the costs of his early discipleship as he writes in verse 12, "...we grow weary from the work of our own hands."
--Anton Ego, Ratatouille.
I read this verse probably 4 times before I thought to look up the definition of apostle (the 2nd one listed). It's not easy to be an early adopter (to borrow from techie parlance) of anything. Karen generally forbids me to buy the first generation of any new trinket. Remembering that Paul is writing here as one of the first Christians, made the entire passage a bit more understandable.
It's easy for a shall we say, "less-diligent" Christians like myself to forget that there was no precedence for Paul and the other apostles who were the first to do some of the very radical things they did for the sake of the gospel. They didn't just defend and champion the despised and lowest in society, they joined them. And, in his own words, "When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we speak kindly." Who did that? Who does that now? Darwin would have nosebleeds.
It's unlikely anyone up until then was doing this kind of thing. And if they were, it's even more unlikely they were doing it for an express purpose like bringing this type of good news: that God sent his son, in human form, to Earth to live, teach and ultimately suffer persecution, betrayal, humiliation and torture for no good Earthly reason, but to atone for the sin that prevents you or I from having the God-intended relationship with Him!
From the outside looking in, it's pretty easy to understand how it must've looked like "a spectacle" performed by "fools" This doesn't even account for "foolishness" like voluntarily-upside down crucifixion.
But all that is not for chest-thumping. In verse 16, Paul urges us "to be imitators of me" As crazy as it may look on the outside, it is good and correct for us to obey, suffer gladly, to be cast among the least of us, and to bless our persecutors for Jesus' sake...
Neither here nor there, but I found it kind of humanizing to see that, Paul felt the costs of his early discipleship as he writes in verse 12, "...we grow weary from the work of our own hands."
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
1 Corinthians 9:15-27
The language in this passage is kind of trippy and I'm pretty sure I don't get it.
Here's my caveman interpretation:
v15-17: Paul is emphasizing that there's nothing to brag about in proclaiming the gospel, because proclaiming the gospel is, the words of Chris Rock, just what you're supposed to do!
v18: No clue. Was the gospel not free at some point? Perhaps a privilege of only certain classes of people? And I have no clue what the full use of rights in the gospel means.
v19-22: My favorite verse in this passage is: I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. You can't save everyone. In fact, to be pedantic, you could argue that you don't save anyone. But the result of saving some, makes it worth it for Paul to walk in the footsteps of many different lifestyles he wouldn't otherwise have to.
v23: So beautiful. Paul feels like the lucky guy who brings the big Publisher's Clearinghouse check to people's houses and shares a little bit in their joy...
v24-27: You are the athlete, the race is your life, the prize is your relationship with God through Christ. Live purposefully by training and disciplining and focusing to that end.
Here's my caveman interpretation:
v15-17: Paul is emphasizing that there's nothing to brag about in proclaiming the gospel, because proclaiming the gospel is, the words of Chris Rock, just what you're supposed to do!
v18: No clue. Was the gospel not free at some point? Perhaps a privilege of only certain classes of people? And I have no clue what the full use of rights in the gospel means.
v19-22: My favorite verse in this passage is: I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. You can't save everyone. In fact, to be pedantic, you could argue that you don't save anyone. But the result of saving some, makes it worth it for Paul to walk in the footsteps of many different lifestyles he wouldn't otherwise have to.
v23: So beautiful. Paul feels like the lucky guy who brings the big Publisher's Clearinghouse check to people's houses and shares a little bit in their joy...
v24-27: You are the athlete, the race is your life, the prize is your relationship with God through Christ. Live purposefully by training and disciplining and focusing to that end.
I Can Haz Corinthians!
I should really do a better job of paying attention to which verses are actually for devotionals.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
This verse reminded me of a CNN article(http://bit.ly/eDDluf) about Pastor Francis Chan quitting his church because he felt like he (not Jesus) was too much in the focal point of Cornerstone church.
Not to pump up my own pastor too much but under PB's watch, this principle is pretty consistently reinforced at United Life. I can think of at least 2 different occasions (one a conversation, one a sermon) where PB's quite clear that the church, the messenger and the message are solely for bringing people into deeper relationship with Christ. They're meant to be as minimally intrusive as possible in making that happen. In truth, I've been guilty of focusing more on United Life than on my own relationship with God Himself. I'm thankful Ben's been there to recalibrate me.
Paul's message and warning then, nearly 2000 years ago, still applies today. People are just wired to worship (or "fall in love with" or "become infactuated with" if you prefer those terms) something. Even when the clear purpose is to worship God, people end up effectively worshipping the church or the pastor (through what they do/spend their time thinking about).
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
This verse reminded me of a CNN article(http://bit.ly/eDDluf) about Pastor Francis Chan quitting his church because he felt like he (not Jesus) was too much in the focal point of Cornerstone church.
Not to pump up my own pastor too much but under PB's watch, this principle is pretty consistently reinforced at United Life. I can think of at least 2 different occasions (one a conversation, one a sermon) where PB's quite clear that the church, the messenger and the message are solely for bringing people into deeper relationship with Christ. They're meant to be as minimally intrusive as possible in making that happen. In truth, I've been guilty of focusing more on United Life than on my own relationship with God Himself. I'm thankful Ben's been there to recalibrate me.
Paul's message and warning then, nearly 2000 years ago, still applies today. People are just wired to worship (or "fall in love with" or "become infactuated with" if you prefer those terms) something. Even when the clear purpose is to worship God, people end up effectively worshipping the church or the pastor (through what they do/spend their time thinking about).
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
How I Connect With God
Naturalist: 10
Activist: 11
Traditionalist: 12
Sensate: 13
Enthusiast:16
Intellectual: 17
Contemplative:17
Ascetic:18
Caregiver: 20
Activist: 11
Traditionalist: 12
Sensate: 13
Enthusiast:16
Intellectual: 17
Contemplative:17
Ascetic:18
Caregiver: 20
1 Corinthians 1:1-10
Not really related to today's devotional, but there was something really perfect about sitting in a nearly empty cafeteria, in the morning with the sun streaming through the windows, and sipping a hot Americano.
Many moons ago when I took a Myers-Briggs assessment, I was classified ESTJ, though that characterization seems odd to me now. I don't consider myself extroverted, more times than not preferring solitude and quiet to a crowd and clatter. Anyways, notes of interest:
1 Cor 1:4, Paul gives thanks to God for Christians everywhere being "enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind-" Truthfully, I can't remember the last time I prayed a word of thanks to God for enrichening someone other than me. I have prayed for God to help people who are hurting or in their times of need, but not so much with the gratitude for something good for someone else...
Today, in the Western world, do we live in a more self-centric, self-involved age? Or is it just me? Now versus just 20 years ago, we're certainly availed a much larger array of vehicles for personal expression , e.g. tumblr, twitter, facebook, blogs, etc... Just a hunch, but it seems to me the notion of a shared fate or stake in one another has faded since Paul's time...
1 Cor 1:5, According to Paul, we're enriched in speech and knowledge of every kind. That's interesting to me, because I definitely don't feel any smarter or more eloquent. But, on the flip side:
1. With say, exercise, it's hard to tell you're getting stronger, you just notice one day, that the weight you lifted 4 weeks ago, you can lift more times. Or that you can run faster/longer than you used to be able to. In other words, maybe it's a slow process that occurs without you even consciously noticing. Tim Keller mentioned in some sermon or another that the Bible often uses botanical metaphors for growth, because you can't see a fruit tree growing and you don't see the process of it's bearing bruit. Maybe it's like that...
2. I definitely acknowledge that in the process of understanding, accepting and living in grace, your perspective definitely experiences shifts.
1 Cor 1:8, I puzzled on this verse a bit, because if you read it a certain way, it almost sounds like Paul is saying that Jesus will build you up (buttercup~) to a point where "you may be blameless on the day of our Lord..." And, of course, we're saved by faith alone. No one (Jesus aside) has ever been able to live a blameless life on their our own. I'm chalking it up to a translation thing. Read in another way, you could look at the same verse as saying that His grace is strong enough bouy you until the end.
Many moons ago when I took a Myers-Briggs assessment, I was classified ESTJ, though that characterization seems odd to me now. I don't consider myself extroverted, more times than not preferring solitude and quiet to a crowd and clatter. Anyways, notes of interest:
1 Cor 1:4, Paul gives thanks to God for Christians everywhere being "enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind-" Truthfully, I can't remember the last time I prayed a word of thanks to God for enrichening someone other than me. I have prayed for God to help people who are hurting or in their times of need, but not so much with the gratitude for something good for someone else...
Today, in the Western world, do we live in a more self-centric, self-involved age? Or is it just me? Now versus just 20 years ago, we're certainly availed a much larger array of vehicles for personal expression , e.g. tumblr, twitter, facebook, blogs, etc... Just a hunch, but it seems to me the notion of a shared fate or stake in one another has faded since Paul's time...
1 Cor 1:5, According to Paul, we're enriched in speech and knowledge of every kind. That's interesting to me, because I definitely don't feel any smarter or more eloquent. But, on the flip side:
1. With say, exercise, it's hard to tell you're getting stronger, you just notice one day, that the weight you lifted 4 weeks ago, you can lift more times. Or that you can run faster/longer than you used to be able to. In other words, maybe it's a slow process that occurs without you even consciously noticing. Tim Keller mentioned in some sermon or another that the Bible often uses botanical metaphors for growth, because you can't see a fruit tree growing and you don't see the process of it's bearing bruit. Maybe it's like that...
2. I definitely acknowledge that in the process of understanding, accepting and living in grace, your perspective definitely experiences shifts.
1 Cor 1:8, I puzzled on this verse a bit, because if you read it a certain way, it almost sounds like Paul is saying that Jesus will build you up (buttercup~) to a point where "you may be blameless on the day of our Lord..." And, of course, we're saved by faith alone. No one (Jesus aside) has ever been able to live a blameless life on their our own. I'm chalking it up to a translation thing. Read in another way, you could look at the same verse as saying that His grace is strong enough bouy you until the end.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Romans 1:1-7
One phrase in today's devotional stuck out especially to me, and I've been turning it over in my mind, still not sure I understand it;
through whom we have recived grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the gentiles for the sake of his name...
--Romans 1:5
So, clearly we are the recipients of grace and apostleship for a specific purpose: to bring about the obedience of faith.
Does the last part mean obedience born of faith? Meaning we are obedient as a result of being faithful, e.g. to borrow from Acts 26: I should forgive because I believe I am forgiven by Jesus' sacrifice?
Or, does it mean that faith, in and of itself, is a form of obedience? Are there other obediences then, like the obedience of [other thing]...
Still churning and not sure what everythign means, but that's what stuck out to me today. :)
through whom we have recived grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the gentiles for the sake of his name...
--Romans 1:5
So, clearly we are the recipients of grace and apostleship for a specific purpose: to bring about the obedience of faith.
Does the last part mean obedience born of faith? Meaning we are obedient as a result of being faithful, e.g. to borrow from Acts 26: I should forgive because I believe I am forgiven by Jesus' sacrifice?
Or, does it mean that faith, in and of itself, is a form of obedience? Are there other obediences then, like the obedience of [
Still churning and not sure what everythign means, but that's what stuck out to me today. :)
1 Samuel 3
I did actually read this Saturday, but didn't blog about it.
When I first read this chapter, I was a little shocked because I didn't understand the context. Coming into the story half-ways, it seemed like God waking up a little kid (Samuel) and telling him, "Your daddy (Eli) was bad, I'm going to make your daddy suffer..."
But, digging in a little more turns out Eli was Samuel's teacher, not his father. Moreover, Eli's kids (Hophni and Phinehas) were, in fact, pretty bad.
Seems like I filter most things through the lens of fatherhood these days and this chapter is no exception. It's definitely possible I'm making a bad inductive conclusion, but I can't help but think about how Eli was called out and held responsible (and seemingly resigned) for failing to properly teach or discipline his children. For parents, especially instilling a proper respect and reverence for the Lord is a big deal. At a minimum, keep kids from douchebaggery like stealing from the offering plate or using church positions as a way to pick up girls.
From another standpoint, this story reminds me of Jesus flipping out at the money changers and vendors inside church. God gets really, really mad when you use Him or use His home as a Trojan Horse for your own benefit.
When I first read this chapter, I was a little shocked because I didn't understand the context. Coming into the story half-ways, it seemed like God waking up a little kid (Samuel) and telling him, "Your daddy (Eli) was bad, I'm going to make your daddy suffer..."
But, digging in a little more turns out Eli was Samuel's teacher, not his father. Moreover, Eli's kids (Hophni and Phinehas) were, in fact, pretty bad.
Seems like I filter most things through the lens of fatherhood these days and this chapter is no exception. It's definitely possible I'm making a bad inductive conclusion, but I can't help but think about how Eli was called out and held responsible (and seemingly resigned) for failing to properly teach or discipline his children. For parents, especially instilling a proper respect and reverence for the Lord is a big deal. At a minimum, keep kids from douchebaggery like stealing from the offering plate or using church positions as a way to pick up girls.
From another standpoint, this story reminds me of Jesus flipping out at the money changers and vendors inside church. God gets really, really mad when you use Him or use His home as a Trojan Horse for your own benefit.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Acts 26 Devotional notes
Acts 26: 17-18
I like the ESV translation here, i.e. "...so that they may turn from darkness to light...that they may receive forgiveness of sins..."
The "may" underscores the idea that there is a choice and it must be made of one's own volition. I think that's a point that militant evangelists are loathe to concede: that you can lead the horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. God gives us a choice to make, he never forces anyone to pick it. Our obedience, like Paul's here, is measured by whether we do the leading. God didn't say, "Thou shalt, under threat of Hellfire, shoot 64% on conversion attempts in Damascus, 66% in Jerusalem and 68% in Judea..."
Acts 26:14
It's interesting to me that, Pauls persecution of Jesus leads Jesus to be concerned for Paul's welfare!
From the ESRV: Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads
Also, it's pretty radical how much Paul changes; basically becoming the poster boy of the type of Christians he persecuted as a Pharisee... He must've been a pretty passionate guy.
I like the ESV translation here, i.e. "...so that they may turn from darkness to light...that they may receive forgiveness of sins..."
The "may" underscores the idea that there is a choice and it must be made of one's own volition. I think that's a point that militant evangelists are loathe to concede: that you can lead the horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. God gives us a choice to make, he never forces anyone to pick it. Our obedience, like Paul's here, is measured by whether we do the leading. God didn't say, "Thou shalt, under threat of Hellfire, shoot 64% on conversion attempts in Damascus, 66% in Jerusalem and 68% in Judea..."
Acts 26:14
It's interesting to me that, Pauls persecution of Jesus leads Jesus to be concerned for Paul's welfare!
From the ESRV: Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads
Also, it's pretty radical how much Paul changes; basically becoming the poster boy of the type of Christians he persecuted as a Pharisee... He must've been a pretty passionate guy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)